The absolute right of the respondent in the suit property and the unsustainable nature of the plea of adverse possession were the central legal points established in the judgment.

JUDGMENT

V. Kameswar Rao, J. - This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated December 17, 2019 whereby the Trial Court had rejected the counter-claim filed by the appellant, who is defendant No.1 in a Suit filed by the respondent No.1 Smt. Janak Kapoor (Janak Kapoor) before it.

2. The brief facts leading to the filing of this appeal are that Late Kewal Krishan Kapoor, the father of the appellant and the respondent No.2 and the husband of the respondent No.1 had purchased a property bearing No.8A/140, WEA, Karol Bagh, New Delhi (suit property, for short) from one Dhruv Kumar in the year 1974. It was his self-acquired property. He had, by a Will dated August 22, 1994, bequeathed the property to his wife Janak Kapoor/ respondent No.1 herein, with the observation that if she is not alive at the time of his death, the suit property would be inherited equally by his two sons, i.e., Rajeev Kapoor (appellant) and Amit Kapoor (respondent No.2). On November 21, 1994, Delhi DevelopmentAuthority (DDA, for short) mutated the suit property in the name of Janak Kapoor / respondent No.1. The property stood transferred in the name of the Janak Kapoor / respondent No.1 with the No Objection from all her children and a conveyance deed was executed by the DDA on June 01, 2012. Janak Kapoor / respondent No.1 became the absolute owner of the suit property.

3. It is noted from the record that the suit property being old, Janak Kapoor / respondent No.1 thought it appropriate to rebuild the property. A builder was engaged, to whom one floor i.e. the Second floor of the proposed new building was allocated. In other words, the suit property comprising of stilt parking, the upper ground floor, first floor, third floor and the roof rights would come to the share of Janak Kapoor / respondent No.1, whereas the Second floor would be appropriated by the builder. After the super structure of the new building was built, due to delay in the completion of the project, the same was taken over and completed by Janak Kapoor / respondent No.1. The second floor was peacefully handed over to the property developer, who further sold it to a third party. After the building was completed, her sons, Rajeev Kapoor / appellant and Amit Kapoor / respondent No.2 occupied the upper ground floor and the first floor of the suit property. Janak Kapoor / respondent No.1 gifted the third floor to her married daughter Roma Malhotra vide gift deed dated November 04, 2015 who was living in her matrimonial home and Janak Kapoor occupied the top floor, herself.

4. In the above background, Amit Kapoor / respondent No.2, had on April 17, 2017, filed a suit with the following prayers:

"a) To cancel the Gift Deed dated 4.11.2015 executed by Defendant No. 1 in respect of 3rd floor of the suit property No. 8A/140, W.E.A. Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110 005, in favour of defendant no. 2 and registered vide Registration No. 8463 in Book No. 1, Volume No. 16222 on pages 1 to 8 before the subRegistrar-lll, Delhi ;

b) To pass Money Decree in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant no.l & 2, thereby directing her to pay to the plaintiff his share of an amount of Rs.20,00,000/-(Rupees Twenty lacs only) with interest @18% per annum for the entire period till its realization and also to pay the amount of joint fixed deposits which she got illegally encashed;

c) To pass a Decree of Permanent Injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant no.l and 2 their agents, assignees and associates, thereby restraining them from dispossessing the plaintiff and also from selling or creating any third party interest in the aforesaid suit property and from encashing the remaining fixed deposits which are in the joint name of the plaintiff and defendant no. 1.

d) To Award the cost of the suit in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants no. 1 & 2."

5. The suit was dismissed by this Court in terms of order dated May 30, 2019, in FAO No.469/2017, which was filed by Janak Kapoo